Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
RadDisconnect

Montana vs. H-41 vs. Super Yamato (A-150) vs. Project 24: realistic proposed battleships

Montana vs. H-41 vs. A-150 vs. Project 24  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Montana vs. H-41 vs. A-150 vs. Project 24

    • Montana
      23
    • H-41
      6
    • "Super Yamato" (A-150)
      15
    • Project 24
      1

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles

So here's a more realistic competition of the ultimate battleships because these ships were actually fully designed and could be built unlike things like H-44. So these ships were much more realistic and feasible instead of being some preliminary studies that weren't going to be built anyways, again unlike H-44. Also, all of these designs are within a year of each other except for Project 24 which I'm giving special favor because Soviet naval technology lagged behind other powers. Summaries mainly pulled from Wikipedia, while making sure that the information was properly cited.

Montana (1942):

016712.jpg

The Montana-class battleships of the United States Navy were planned as successors to the Iowa-class, being slower but larger, better armored, and having superior firepower, returning to the US Navy battleship tradition of maximum firepower and protection while having moderate speeds. This would have been the US Navy's first class of true post-treaty battleships, designed entirely free from treaty restrictions from the beginning. Five were approved for construction during World War II, but changes in wartime building priorities resulted in their cancellation in favor of the Essex-class aircraft carriers and Iowa class before any Montana-class keels were laid. With beams of 121 feet, they would have been the first U.S. battleships as originally designed to be too wide to transit the existing 110 foot wide locks of the Panama Canal. In conjunction with the Montana-class, the Navy also planned to add a third set of locks to the Panama Canal that would be 140 ft (43 m) wide to enable ship designs with greater beam; these locks would have been armored and would normally be reserved for use by Navy warships. Preliminary design work for the Montana-class began before the US entry into World War II. The first two vessels were approved by Congress in 1939 following the passage of the Second Vinson Act. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor delayed construction of the Montana class. The success of carrier combat at the Battle of the Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway, diminished the value of the battleship. Consequently, though the design was finalized in 1942, the US Navy chose to cancel the Montana-class in 1943 favor of more urgently needed aircraft carriers, escorts, amphibious ships, and anti-submarine vessels.

  • Displacement:
    • 61,470 metric tons standard
    • 72,104 metric tons full
  • Length: 281.9 m (925 ft)
  • Beam: 36.93 m (121.2 ft)
  • Draft: 10.97 m (36 ft)
  • Propulsion: 172,000 SHP, 4 shafts
  • Speed: 28 knots
  • Armament:
    • 4x3 406 mm (16 inch) L/50 main guns
    • 10x2 127 mm (5 inch) L/54 dual-purpose secondaries
  • Armor:
    • Belt: 409 mm on 25 mm STS at 19 degrees, 183 mm at 10 degrees lower belt
    • Deck:
      • 57 mm weather deck
      • 187-179 mm main armor deck
      • 25-16 mm splinter deck
    • Bulkheads: 457 mm front, 387 mm rear
    • Barbettes: 541-457 mm
    • Turrets:
      • 572 mm front
      • 254 mm sides
      • 232 mm roof
    • TDS: 6.25 m (20.5 ft) depth

 

H-41 (1941)

H-41_class.jpg

In 1938, the OKM developed Plan Z, the projected construction program for the German navy. A force of six H-39 (the FDG in game) class battleships was the centerpiece of the fleet. Plan Z was finalized by January 1939, when Admiral Erich Raeder, the commander of the Kriegsmarine, presented it to Hitler. He approved the plan on 18 January and granted the Kriegsmarine unlimited power to bring the construction program to fruition. The OKM issued orders for construction of the first two ships, "H" and "J", on 14 April 1939. The contracts for the other four ships, "K", "L", "M", and "N", followed on 25 May. The keels for the first two ships were laid at the Blohm & Voss dockyard in Hamburg and the Deschimag shipyard in Bremen on 15 July and 1 September 1939, respectively. The outbreak of war in September 1939 interrupted the construction of the ships. Work on the first two was suspended and the other four were not laid down, as it was believed they would not be finished before the war was over. Bomb damage sustained by Scharnhorst in July 1941 provided the impetus for the effort to increase the horizontal protection for the H-class. The designers were confronted with a significant problem: any increase in armor could correspondingly increase the displacement and more importantly, the draft. It was necessary to maintain the full-load draft of 11.5 m of the H-39 design for operations in the relatively shallow North Sea. The only option that allowed the displacement to be maintained while armor thicknesses to be increased was to reduce the ships' fuel supplies. A 25 percent cut in range was required, which was deemed unacceptable by the OKM. It was eventually determined that since deep-water anchorages on the Atlantic coast were available, it would be permissible to allow the draft to increase. One of the most significant changes was the decision to bore out the over-sized 40.6 cm guns to 42 cm caliber for the H-41 design. The design staff determined that modifications to the ammunition hoists and loading equipment would be easily effected and that the original turrets could be retained. The ships' main armor decks were substantially strengthened, and a triple bottom was added, a first for a German battleship. The finalized design was approved by Admiral Raeder on 15 November 1941.

  • Displacement:
    • 64,000 metric tons standard
    • 68,800-79,000 metric tons full (depending on fuel load)
  • Length: 282 m
  • Beam: 39 m
  • Draft: 12.2 m
  • Propulsion: 165,000 SHP, 3 shafts
  • Speed: 28.8 knots
  • Armament:
    • 4x2 420 mm L/48 main guns
    • 6x2 150 mm L/55 secondaries
    • 8x2 105 mm L/65 AA guns (can be used as secondaries)
  • Armor:
    • Belt: 300 mm, 175-150 mm turtleback, 60-45 mm splinter belt
    • Deck:
      • 80-50 mm weather deck
      • 25 mm middle deck
      • 200-150 mm main armor deck (no splinter deck)
    • Bulkheads: 220 mm front and rear
    • Barbettes: 365 mm
    • Turrets:
      • 385 mm front
      • 240 mm sides
      • 130 mm roof
    • TDS: 6.5 m depth (very few bulkheads though)

 

 

"Super Yamato" (A-150) (1941)

A-150.jpg

Design A-150 was a design for a class of battleships for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Begun in 1938–1939, the design was mostly complete by 1941. However, after the start of the Pacific War in December 1941, all work on Design A-150 was halted so that the demand for other types of warships could be met and no ship was ever laid down. Early conceptions of the A-150 battleships called for eight or nine 51 cm guns in double or triple turrets, as the successful construction of a 48-centimeter (18.9 in) gun in 1920–1921 made the Japanese confident that such a large weapon could be built. The designers hoped to give the ships a top speed of 30 knots, which would give them a comfortable margin over the American 27-knot North Carolina-class battleships. However, these grand specifications were curtailed when tests culminated in a ship that had a displacement of some 90,000 long tons (91,000 t); it was felt that ships of this size would be "too large and too expensive". Formal design studies instead initially focused on a ship closer to the displacement of the preceding Yamato-class, on which plans had just been completed in 1938–1939, though they continued using a 51 cm gun, with the number reduced to six. Plans for the A-150s were finished sometime in 1941, for most intents and purposes, but all design work was diverted from battleships in early 1941—even though the A-150s' design was virtually complete—in order to focus on higher-priority warships like aircraft carriers and cruisers. Two A-150s, provisionally designated as Warships Number 798 and 799, were projected in a 1942 building program. Under this plan, 798 would have been built in the same dock as Shinano, while 799 would be built in Kure in the same dock as Yamato after a fourth Yamato-class ship was launched. The ships would have then have been finished in 1946–1947, but the war's turn against the Japanese after the Battle of Midway meant that the need for ships other than battleships never abated.

  • Displacement:
    • about 71,000 metric tons full
  • Length: 263 m
  • Beam: 38.9 m
  • Propulsion: Unknown
  • Speed: at least 27 knots
  • Armament:
    • 3x2 510 mm (20.1 inch) L/45 main guns
    • "many" 100 mm (3.9 inch) L/65 dual-purpose secondaries
  • Armor:
    • 460 mm at 20 degrees belt, no other information given
    • TDS: 5.1 m depth or more judging from Yamato

 

Project 24 (1950)

%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_24_title.jpg

What started as a refinement of the Project 23 Sovetsky Soyuz battleship design became a new successor battleship designed called Project 24. In the years 1944-1945, Project 24 was designed with information of the Montana-class that were planned for construction in the USA. Later, when it became known about the cancellation of the order for the Montana as far back as 1943, the only opponent of the new battleship could be only be American Iowa-class which drove the subsequent development of the project was 24, though periodically in as opponents, the Montana would reappear. In 1948, work on the Project 24 (together with a group of specialists headed by the acting chief designer FE Bespolov) were transferred from CDB-17 to the newly formed TsKB-L (from the end of 1949 - TsKB-16), where, together with the Design Bureau of the Central Research Institute of the VK, the development of variants of the pre-project project, on the basis of which the requirements were compiled, and the development of various particular issues, continued. As of January 25, 1949, 483,000 rubles were spent on the development of the Project 24. The design was mostly finalized by 1950 with the XIII proposal chosen. With the death of Stalin, the continuing the design and construction of heavy artillery ships ceased to be relevant to the leadership of the fleet and industry, and when adjusting the plans for military shipbuilding in April 1953 all the work in this area, including the Project 24, was closed.

  • Displacement:
    • 72,950 metric tons standard
    • 81,150 metric tons full
  • Length: 282 m
  • Beam: 40.4 m
  • Draft: 11.5 m
  • Propulsion: 280,000 SHP, 4 shafts
  • Speed: 30 knots
  • Armament:
    • 3x3 406 mm L/50 main guns
    • 8x2 130 mm L/58 dual-purpose secondaries
  • Armor:
    • Belt: 450-410 mm at 20 degrees
    • Deck:
      • 60 mm weather deck
      • 165 mm main armor deck
      • 20 mm splinter deck
    • Traverse bulkheads: 400 mm front and rear
    • Barbettes: 500-415 mm
    • Turrets:
      • 600 mm front
      • 230 mm side
      • 230 mm roof
    • TDS: 6.2 m depth

 

Ship and year of design Montana (1942) H-41 (1941) "Super Yamato" A-150 (1941) Project 24 (1950)
Standard displacement 61,470 metric tons 64,000 metric tons N/A 72,950 metric tons
Full displacement 72,104 metric tons 68,800-79,000 metric tons about 71,000 metric tons 81,150 metric tons
Length 281.9 m 282 m 263 m 282 m
Beam 36.93 m 39 m 38.9 m 40.4 m
Draft 10.97 m 12.2 m N/A 11.5 m
Propulsion 172,000 SHP, 4 shafts 165,000 SHP, 3 shafts N/A 280,000 SHP, 4 shafts
Speed 28 knots 28.8 knots at least 27 knots 30 knots
Main guns 12 - 406 mm L/50 (4x3) 8 - 420 mm L/48 (4x2) 6 - 510 mm L/45  (3x2) 9 - 406 mm L/50 (3x3)
Secondary guns 20 - 127 mm L/54 (10x2)

12 - 150 mm L/50 (6x2)

16 - 105 mm L/65 (8x2)

"many" 100 mm L/65 16 - 130 mm L/58 (8x2)
Belt armor 409 mm on 25 mm STS at 19 degrees 300 mm vertical, 175-150 mm turtleback, 60-45 mm splinter belt 460 mm at 20 degrees 450-410 mm at 20 degrees
Weather deck 57 mm 80-50 mm, 25 mm middle deck N/A 60 mm
Main armor deck 183-179 mm 200-150 mm main armor deck N/A (200 mm on Yamato) 165 mm
Splinter deck 25-16 mm none N/A 20 mm
Bulkhead armor 457 mm front, 387 mm rear 220 mm front and rear N/A (350-300 mm on Yamato) 400 mm front and rear
Barbette armor 541-457 mm 365 mm N/A (546 mm on Yamato) 500-415 mm
Turret armor 572 mm front, 254 mm sides, 232 mm roof 385 mm front, 240 mm sides, 130 mm roof N/A (650 mm front on Yamato 600 mm front, 230 mm side, 230 mm roof
TDS depth 6.25 m 6.5 m N/A (5.1 m on Yamato) 6.2 m
         
Edited by RadDisconnect
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles

Personally, out of all of these realistic designs (i.e. ships that could've been built) I'll go with Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[YAN]
Members
1,637 posts
7,464 battles

I'm going to say, in a 1 on 1 slugging fest my bets are on the KMS ship, based on the stupid amount of firepower required to eventually put it under and the endurance of the Bismarck, which it is basically an enlarged version of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
914 posts
6,119 battles
3 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

I'm going to say, in a 1 on 1 slugging fest my bets are on the KMS ship, based on the stupid amount of firepower required to eventually put it under and the endurance of the Bismarck, which it is basically an enlarged version of.

Only took a couple of shots for Rodney to put out it's guns. Once you do that, it doesn't matter how long it takes to beat it to death. Either Rodney was exceptionally lucky, or there was a weakness there. We'll probably never know. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,780 posts
5,642 battles

Its the bravery and the skill of the Captain and Crew. Not the ships. We learned that lesson with Taffy 3.:Smile_izmena::cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,996 posts

I would prefer the Tillerman Maximum BBs if we're going for most impressive US capital ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles

Or maybe we could "Just say NO!" as there are enough OP paper ships in the game already, ESPECIALLY Russian ones.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
260 posts

Montana always has a chance due to the excellent US fire control, but the guns on the Super Y and the KM ship are going to overmatch her armor if they start getting hits. 

Of course, that's just based on them being bigger.  We have no idea of their penetration capabilities or rate of fire, which is bound to be slower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles

Hey

I will go with the Germans.  Superior steel, better guns in reality, better optics of the day.  The real question comes down to radar guidance for the guns, and the ability of the armour of the Montana against calibers larger than 16in.  Then there was the H44 design.  (not to mention aircraft operations of the day was second to none).

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
46 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I will go with the Germans.  Superior steel, better guns in reality, better optics of the day.  The real question comes down to radar guidance for the guns, and the ability of the armour of the Montana against calibers larger than 16in.  Then there was the H44 design.  (not to mention aircraft operations of the day was second to none).

 

Pete

H-44 was NOT a design it was just a concept that even the OKM had nothing to do with. People need to stop repeating about H-44 because H-41 was the largest the Germans actually designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
260 posts
1 hour ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

I will go with the Germans.  Superior steel, better guns in reality, better optics of the day.  The real question comes down to radar guidance for the guns, and the ability of the armour of the Montana against calibers larger than 16in.  Then there was the H44 design.  (not to mention aircraft operations of the day was second to none).

 

Pete

People always talk about the Germans having "better optics".    Whether that's true or not, I don't know for sure but what I do know is that even if it is, it's not much of a difference.   US optics were top-notch.  No complaints with them at all.   You're talking a very minor difference, if there was one and it's not enough to matter in a battle.   Both systems are equally capable of getting the range and bearing on a target.  

And the US fire control SYSTEM is better.  "Fire Control" =/= "Optics"    Optics is just one part of the system.   US ships could maintain a firing solution while the ship maneuvered.   German ships could not.   They had to maneuver, then reacquire a solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles
26 minutes ago, RadDisconnect said:

H-44 was NOT a design it was just a concept that even the OKM had nothing to do with. People need to stop repeating about H-44 because H-41 was the largest the Germans actually designed.

Hey

To say that there wasn't a design for the H44 is wrong, it was a conceptual design which describes the basic size of the ship, tonnage, gun caliber, layout, etc. and it was part of the H series initial plans that were laid down but never adopted, there is some conflicting information about them but the basics are there in history.  Only the H39/H41 programs were started, with the H41 having 2 keels laid down but then work was stopped.  Bismarck and Tirpitz were 2 of a planned 4 ship group.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals   There are of course other sources.  So lighten up obi-wan, take a deep breath.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles
1 minute ago, JuiceEFruit said:

People always talk about the Germans having "better optics".    Whether that's true or not, I don't know for sure but what I do know is that even if it is, it's not much of a difference.   US optics were top-notch.  No complaints with them at all.   You're talking a very minor difference, if there was one and it's not enough to matter in a battle.   Both systems are equally capable of getting the range and bearing on a target.  

And the US fire control SYSTEM is better.  "Fire Control" =/= "Optics"    Optics is just one part of the system.   US ships could maintain a firing solution while the ship maneuvered.   German ships could not.   They had to maneuver, then reacquire a solution. 

Hey

Did I not mention in my first post above about radar guidance of the main guns?  Which by the way would be far superior to any visual sighting of a target; the Japanese found out the hard way in a couple of engagements (one at night) just how good the American fire control accuracy was.  If one goes back to WW1 at Jutland and Dogger Bank, it proved the superior design of German BB's and Battlecruisers to the RN.  And did I also not mention above about the advantage of naval aviation as well?  I just think the Germans had the ability and the technology to give anyone a run for the money in a perfect environment; but obviously history, economics, manpower and Hitler's erratic thinking proved to be their undoing.  Thankfully.  

 

Pete 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
38 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

To say that there wasn't a design for the H44 is wrong, it was a conceptual design which describes the basic size of the ship, tonnage, gun caliber, layout, etc. and it was part of the H series initial plans that were laid down but never adopted, there is some conflicting information about them but the basics are there in history.  Only the H39/H41 programs were started, with the H41 having 2 keels laid down but then work was stopped.  Bismarck and Tirpitz were 2 of a planned 4 ship group.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals   There are of course other sources.  So lighten up obi-wan, take a deep breath.

 

Pete

Also the source said.

"The Construction Office of the OKM formally concluded their work on new battleships with the H-41 type and played no further role in battleship development."

and

"The Commission did not discuss its activities with Raeder or his successor, Admiral Karl Dönitz, or with other branches in the OKM.[38] As the designs for the H-42, H-43, and H-44 battleships were purely conjectural, no actual work was begun. The German navy did not seriously consider construction on any of the designs, which were so large that they could not have been built in a traditional slipway. Indeed, the Construction Office of the OKM sought to disassociate itself from the projects, which they found to be of doubtful merit and unnecessary for German victory."

The whole reason I made this "realistic" poll is these ships here are ones that could conceivably be built instead of being pure conjecture. Or else I would have throw ridiculous things like Tillman maximum battleships in here.

Edited by RadDisconnect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles
1 minute ago, RadDisconnect said:

Also the source said.

"The Construction Office of the OKM formally concluded their work on new battleships with the H-41 type and played no further role in battleship development."

and

"The Commission did not discuss its activities with Raeder or his successor, Admiral Karl Dönitz, or with other branches in the OKM.[38] As the designs for the H-42, H-43, and H-44 battleships were purely conjectural, no actual work was begun. The German navy did not seriously consider construction on any of the designs, which were so large that they could not have been built in a traditional slipway. Indeed, the Construction Office of the OKM sought to disassociate itself from the projects, which they found to be of doubtful merit and unnecessary for German victory."

The whole reason I made this "realistic" poll is these ships here are ones that could conceivably be built instead of being pure conjecture. Or else I would have throw ridiculous things like Tillman battleships in here.

Hey

Yes.....And?  Conceptual design means on paper only.   H-41 had keels laid down but work was stopped, that's where everything ended as I said before.  There was basic designs for the rest of the H ships but I believe I mentioned that already.  Keep in mind,  who knows where the Germans could have been had the war not started when it  did, but had waited until Hitler had originally planned for around 1948.   Conceivably, some of the Z plan could have been implemented by the Germans, but history (as I mentioned before) proved otherwise and the plan barely got started.  

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
2 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Yes.....And?  Conceptual design means on paper only.   H-41 had keels laid down but work was stopped, that's where everything ended as I said before.  There was basic designs for the rest of the H ships but I believe I mentioned that already.  Keep in mind,  who knows where the Germans could have been had the war not started when it  did, but had waited until Hitler had originally planned for around 1948.   Conceivably, some of the Z plan could have been implemented by the Germans, but history (as I mentioned before) proved otherwise and the plan barely got started.  

 

Pete

There's a difference between real and finalized or nearly finalized designs and pure conjecture and studies. The former are ships that were ready to be built and we know quite a bit about them while the latter does not. The H-44 is much more speculative than H-41 was so no, not all designs are equal and the ones here are only the designs that were finished or almost finished. If H-44 is included then things like maximum battleship or some of the ridiculous British concepts would also be here but they're not included for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
914 posts
2,624 battles

The KM H-41 and "super" Yamato lack the tubes necessary to really be competitive.  Given their displacement, having just 8 or even 6 guns is absurdly low.  As the US discovered it was better to have 12 14" guns on a battleship than 8 16" guns.  The former meant hitting more often than the larger guns and the difference in penetration was largely irrelevant.  Same thing here.  Those 6 20" guns would fire so slowly and have such a low per salvo hit rate the Super Yamato would be smothered in shells and damage long before it could return the favor.

The Russian entry is a bit more balanced, but then Soviet era naval equipment was never quite up to snuff, except on paper.

So, by elimination we end up at the Montana.  It is based on a sound design of previous classes, uses a known and tested gun, and wouldn't have all the issues the other 3 have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles

Added a table for easier comparison of ships.

Ship and year of design Montana (1942) H-41 (1941) "Super Yamato" A-150 (1941) Project 24 (1950)
Standard displacement 61,470 metric tons 64,000 metric tons N/A 72,950 metric tons
Full displacement 72,104 metric tons 68,800-79,000 metric tons about 71,000 metric tons 81,150 metric tons
Length 281.9 m 282 m 263 m 282 m
Beam 36.93 m 39 m 38.9 m 40.4 m
Draft 10.97 m 12.2 m N/A 11.5 m
Propulsion 172,000 SHP, 4 shafts 165,000 SHP, 3 shafts N/A 280,000 SHP, 4 shafts
Speed 28 knots 28.8 knots at least 27 knots 30 knots
Main guns 12 - 406 mm L/50 (4x3) 8 - 420 mm L/48 (4x2) 6 - 510 mm L/45  (3x2) 9 - 406 mm L/50 (3x3)
Secondary guns 20 - 127 mm L/54 (10x2)

12 - 150 mm L/50 (6x2)

16 - 105 mm L/65 (8x2)

"many" 100 mm L/65 16 - 130 mm L/58 (8x2)
Belt armor 409 mm on 25 mm STS at 19 degrees 300 mm vertical, 175-150 mm turtleback, 60-45 mm splinter belt 460 mm at 20 degrees 450-410 mm at 20 degrees
Weather deck 57 mm 80-50 mm, 25 mm middle deck N/A 60 mm
Main armor deck 183-179 mm 200-150 mm main armor deck N/A (200 mm on Yamato) 165 mm
Splinter deck 25-16 mm none N/A 20 mm
Bulkhead armor 457 mm front, 387 mm rear 220 mm front and rear N/A (350-300 mm on Yamato) 400 mm front and rear
Barbette armor 541-457 mm 365 mm N/A (546 mm on Yamato) 500-415 mm
Turret armor 572 mm front, 254 mm sides, 232 mm roof 385 mm front, 240 mm sides, 130 mm roof N/A (650 mm front on Yamato 600 mm front, 230 mm side, 230 mm roof
TDS depth 6.25 m 6.5 m N/A (5.1 m on Yamato) 6.2 m
         
Edited by RadDisconnect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles
6 minutes ago, RadDisconnect said:

There's a difference between real and finalized or nearly finalized designs and pure conjecture and studies. The former are ships that were ready to be built and we know quite a bit about them while the latter does not. The H-44 is much more speculative than H-41 was so no, not all designs are equal and the ones here are only the designs that were finished or almost finished. If H-44 is included then things like maximum battleship or some of the ridiculous British concepts would also be here but they're not included for a reason.

Hey

Well; one thing that you forget is the fact that a lot of information about the Z plan, the H ships, etc. were in fact lost during the war.  But still, H39 and H41 were started, H43/H44 are more questionable but still existed.  Much of the information that we do have is in fragments of documents, this was either deliberate or more likely, just due to allied bombing/war losses.  Never the less, there is some information about these ships still available.  The H44 program would have still faced shipyard building issues, and problems associated with building key components, so it was not practical in any way BUT that doesn't mean that had history been different, they couldn't have been built.  It's a could have, would have situation.  Just like with the Montana; the US government was planning on building a 3rd Panama Canal just so these military ships could pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there was issue with building them in New York due to the height of the Brooklyn bridge at low tide.  So of the ships you mention; the Montana was farthest developed, Japanese A150 next, then Germany's H39 2 built, 2 H41's keel laid, H43/H44 never started other than conceptual idea's, basic design specs.  You also didn't mention the "ridiculous" British Concepts; why is that?  If they where put onto paper then why not (HMS Lion of rone), not much different than the A150 at this point.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
2 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Well; one thing that you forget is the fact that a lot of information about the Z plan, the H ships, etc. were in fact lost during the war.  But still, H39 and H41 were started, H43/H44 are more questionable but still existed.  Much of the information that we do have is in fragments of documents, this was either deliberate or more likely, just due to allied bombing/war losses.  Never the less, there is some information about these ships still available.  The H44 program would have still faced shipyard building issues, and problems associated with building key components, so it was not practical in any way BUT that doesn't mean that had history been different, they couldn't have been built.  It's a could have, would have situation.  Just like with the Montana; the US government was planning on building a 3rd Panama Canal just so these military ships could pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there was issue with building them in New York due to the height of the Brooklyn bridge at low tide.  So of the ships you mention; the Montana was farthest developed, Japanese A150 next, then Germany's H39 2 built, 2 H41's keel laid, H43/H44 never started other than conceptual idea's, basic design specs.  You also didn't mention the "ridiculous" British Concepts; why is that?  If they where put onto paper then why not (HMS Lion of rone), not much different than the A150 at this point.

 

Pete

You're wrong no H-39 was built only 2 were laid down while H-41 design was finished but none laid down.

So I say again, I'm only including finalized or nearly finalized designs here, so no H-44. Or else I would include things like Jackie Fischer's HMS Incomparable, Tillman maximum battleships, even preliminary A-150 designs with 8 or 9 20 inch guns. Rough concepts like these are much harder to compare because not much is know about them or even whether or not they're feasible to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
22 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

The KM H-41 and "super" Yamato lack the tubes necessary to really be competitive.  Given their displacement, having just 8 or even 6 guns is absurdly low.  As the US discovered it was better to have 12 14" guns on a battleship than 8 16" guns.  The former meant hitting more often than the larger guns and the difference in penetration was largely irrelevant.  Same thing here.  Those 6 20" guns would fire so slowly and have such a low per salvo hit rate the Super Yamato would be smothered in shells and damage long before it could return the favor.

The Russian entry is a bit more balanced, but then Soviet era naval equipment was never quite up to snuff, except on paper.

So, by elimination we end up at the Montana.  It is based on a sound design of previous classes, uses a known and tested gun, and wouldn't have all the issues the other 3 have.

The Project 24 just looks ridiculously wasteful. How do you end up being 10,000 tons heavier than a Montana but have less guns? It's only 2 knots faster and armor seems no better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
1 hour ago, RadDisconnect said:

The whole reason I made this "realistic" poll is these ships here are ones that could conceivably be built instead of being pure conjecture. Or else I would have throw ridiculous things like Tillman maximum battleships in here.

Tillman Maximum Battleships weren't even the most powerful proposed by the USN. Take a look at the 1934 Maximum Battleship studies, specifically the 72,500 ton standard design. This is a screenshot from Norman Friedman I found. Eight 20" guns.

usNkxNd.png

 

Regarding the ships presented in the OP, the Montana is probably the all-around best design.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,512 posts
7,978 battles
4 minutes ago, RadDisconnect said:

You're wrong no H-39 was built only 2 were laid down while H-41 design was finished but none laid down.

So I say again, I'm only including finalized or nearly finalized designs here, so no H-44. Or else I would include things like Jackie Fischer's HMS Incomparable, Tillman maximum battleships, even preliminary A-150 designs with 8 or 9 20 inch guns. Rough concepts like these are much harder to compare because not much is know about them or even whether or not they're feasible to build.

Hey

You are correct; 2 H39's were started but that was as far as they got.  H41 was a follow on but never started.   The basics of the Z plan had been started, the ground work was planned and even initially started with the H39.  With the exception of Montana and H39 all of these designs are questionable, especially in practicality of being completed.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
55 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Tillman Maximum Battleships weren't even the most powerful proposed by the USN. Take a look at the 1934 Maximum Battleship studies, specifically the 72,500 ton standard design. This is a screenshot from Norman Friedman I found. Eight 20" guns.

usNkxNd.png

 

Regarding the ships presented in the OP, the Montana is probably the all-around best design.

This just shows how ridiculous proposals can be if they don't get seriously considered and actually have finished design. This ship is in the same group as H-44.

Edited by RadDisconnect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
29 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

You are correct; 2 H39's were started but that was as far as they got.  H41 was a follow on but never started.   The basics of the Z plan had been started, the ground work was planned and even initially started with the H39.  With the exception of Montana and H39 all of these designs are questionable, especially in practicality of being completed.

 

Pete

The A-150 design with the 3x2 510 mm guns was actually nearly finished. So it's much more feasible and realistic than H-44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×